ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2025
Impact of second-line combination chemotherapy on post-progression survival in metastatic and recurrent pancreatic cancer.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the second-line combination chemotherapy (CC) for patients with metastatic or recurrent pancreatic cancer.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients with metastatic or recurrent pancreatic cancer, who received second-line chemotherapy after disease progression on first-line modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) or gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GnP) between January 2014 and March 2023 at our hospital. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and post-progression survival (PPS) were compared between first-line mFFX and GnP. In addition, OS, PFS, and PPS for second-line treatment with CC and single-agent chemotherapy (SAC) were compared using propensity score matching (PSM).
results457 patients (mFFX/GnP: 122/335) were included. Median OS and PPS of mFFX and GnP were 15.5 months vs. 15.0 months (p = 0.73) and 7.7 months vs. 7.2 months (p = 0.37), respectively. After PSM, median OS and median PPS were significantly longer in the CC group than in the SAC group (OS: 16.3 months vs. 12.8 months, p < 0.01; PPS: 8.0 months vs. 5.5 months, p < 0.01). There was no difference in first-line PFS between the two groups (7.1 months vs. 6.4 months, p = 0.74). Performance status at the beginning of first-line treatment, and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level, Glasgow prognostic score at the end of first-line treatment, and second-line CC were independently associated with OS.
conclusionSecond-line CC achieved longer PPS and OS than SAC. To improve OS, it was important to receive second-line CC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40498276What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.